Welcome to FinHeaven Fans Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd
like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our
other members.

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

If you are a member in good standing, then you can navigate to the 2015 Miami Dolphins Media Guide from the navigation bar at the top of the forums. Also, in the sticky section of the main forum, there is a link to vote on your top 50 dolphins players of all time.

There is no up without down; no black without white; no joy without suffering. No wave ever only had a crest, and no trough, or vice-versa. As it currently stands, I don't know how it's possible to experience only joy without sorrow. If all you ever experienced was "joy", it wouldn't really be joyous because there'd be nothing to compare it to; it would just be your eternal, non-fluxing state. Which, to be quite honest sounds like a bit of a bore as well.

Preacher man, don't tell me,
Heaven is under the earth.
I know you don't know
What life is really worth
It's not all that glitters is gold;
'Alf the story has never been told:
--
Most people think,
Great god will come from the skies,
Take away everything
And make everybody feel high.
But if you know what life is worth,
You will look for yours on earth:

- Bob Marley

if we're talking about the christian version of heaven, and not the greek, norse, etc, you have to imagine a place where the laws we live by (time, space, etc) have no place, and as such eternity has no meaning in the sense of knowing time is passing. Even with that type of mindset, "eternal Joy" is the way a living being would describe the undescribable. It certainly is a place of no wants, no concerns, no sickness, no death, and quite possibly no desires. just contentment. This would imply that we leave behind a lot of the things that make us human, or mortal.

So to actually describe heaven from a living beings point of view and experience, would be as impossible as an ant trying to understand a computer.

"Now when I go to the bathroom I find out who my friends are." - Jake Scott after both broken hands were in casts following the 1972 season

Locke, his wife, and his child are living in the Middle East 2,500 years ago, they have had a terrible drought and all of their crops have died. He is hungry, his wife is hungry, his child cries at night because of hunger pains. He looks at his wife and says… “Now I know that if we entered into a servitude contract with a Hebrew landowner we can live in his house, he’ll give us food and water, and after six years our contract will be fulfilled and he’ll even give us monetary gifts in order to start our new life and get our feet off of the ground….I know we could do this….I know it’d save us from death…but slavery is never justified!!! So I have decided we will just starve to death…don’t worry honey it only takes a human a few weeks to die of starvation it will all be over soon…and you'll die free!”

That’s really intelligent! I am glad you atheists believe slavery is never justified! I’d save my wife and child though, and I’d be grateful to the Israelite for helping us.

Last edited by Statler Waldorf; 02-22-2013 at 06:19 PM.

Total DepravityUnconditional ElectionLimited AtonementIrresistible GracePerseverance of the Saints

Lol @ you trying to rationalize slavery. "We treat our slaves better than most people treat their slaves". Lol.

Also, I'm not an atheist. I'm a non-theist.

Also also, we're not talking about rape here. We're talking about two, grown male adults, who consent to fornicate with one another; which as you've made clear, is an act that you think is worth being executed over.

Locke, his wife, and his child are living in the Middle East 2,500 years ago, they have had a terrible drought and all of their crops have died. He is hungry, his wife is hungry, his child cries at night because of hunger pains. He looks at his wife and says… “Now I know that if we entered into a servitude contract with a Hebrew landowner we can live in his house, he’ll give us food and water, and after six years our contract will be fulfilled and he’ll even give us monetary gifts in order to start our new life and get our feet off of the ground….I know we could do this….I know it’d save us from death…but slavery is never justified!!! So I have decided we will just starve to death…don’t worry honey it only takes a human a few weeks to die of starvation it will all be over soon…and you'll die free!”

That’s really intelligent! I am glad you atheists believe slavery is never justified! I’d save my wife and child though, and I’d be grateful to the Israelite for helping us.

Why do you assume I'm an atheist? I've never said anything to even give the smallest hint that I'm an atheist. Just because I don't believe in your warped views of Christianity doesn't mean I'm not a spiritual person. You're here trying to convince people to be Christians, yet you're blind to the fact that "Christians" like you are why so many people leave your churches. You throw everyone who disagrees with you under the blanket term atheist, which is ignorant. I'm not, nor have I ever been, an atheist. I will also never be an atheist. I will also never be a Christian, thanks to "Christians" like you...

If I could take your pain and frame it, and hang it on my wall,
maybe you would never have to hurt again...

Lol @ you trying to rationalize slavery. "We treat our slaves better than most people treat their slaves". Lol.

Haha, I knew you couldn’t come back with anything because I worked you over in that post. I was taught a long time ago to never give a non-believer a free lunch, they will talk a good game, they will make assertion after assertion, challenge them to back up all of it. If you challenge them to actually back up their position you’ll find they really have no idea what they are talking about, they can’t back up what they are saying because they are almost always borrowing their concepts and ideas from Christianity. You have been an excellent example of that, you act disgusted there is slavery and servitude in the Bible but when you are challenged on this point your argument amounts to, “I don’t know why slavery is wrong but it’s wrong (even though my two bit definition of morality wouldn’t define it as wrong)! Even if it saves people from starving to death it’s still wrong!!” You’re hopeless, but unfortunately very typical, lol.

Also, I'm not an atheist. I'm a non-theist.

Yes and I am a non-Muslim but that doesn’t really tell us much, If you don’t believe in God or gods you’re an atheist.

Also also, we're not talking about rape here. We're talking about two, grown male adults, who consent to fornicate with one another; which as you've made clear, is an act that you think is worth being executed over.

This gives me a great opportunity to use my method of “challenge everything the non-believer asserts”, we will see if you can back any of it up.

1. Why does it matter they are adults? Are adults not capable of doing something wrong? Pedophiles don’t believe that molesting a child is rape because often they can get the child to consent, are they wrong? Why?2.So is adultery not wrong? After all, aren’t they just two adults who have consented to fornicate with one another? Your morality seems to be helplessly subjective, and subjective morality is meaningless.

Originally Posted by Locke

Why do you assume I'm an atheist?

I apologize for assuming you were an atheist.

I've never said anything to even give the smallest hint that I'm an atheist.

Your stated views on origins and morality are atheistic in nature.

Just because I don't believe in your warped views of Christianity doesn't mean I'm not a spiritual person.

My views on Christianity are the historical views of the faith so the fact you consider them “warped” just means you don’t’ know much about Christianity. I never said you weren’t a spiritual person, you can be spiritual and still be an atheist, all naturalistic materialists are atheists but not all atheists are naturalistic materialists. If you don’t believe in God, a god, or gods, you’re an atheist, if you do believe in God, a god, or gods I’d love to hear which one(s).

You're here trying to convince people to be Christians

Where did I say that?

, yet you're blind to the fact that "Christians" like you are why so many people leave your churches.

2.3 billion Christians in the world, God is saving. People leave the church because they are not there for the right reasons to begin with; it has nothing to do with Christians like me who believe what the Bible teaches. If you don’t’ believe what the Bible teaches then you shouldn’t be calling yourself a consistent Christian, even Dawkins agrees with that position.

You throw everyone who disagrees with you under the blanket term atheist, which is ignorant.

Nope, not everyone who disagrees with me is an atheist, I just thought you and Rob were (can’t figure out what Rob believes, he’s all over the map). Some of my favorite people and best friends are atheists, and they respect my position far more than they do of any theistic Evolutionist or old-Earth Christian because I actually believe and defend what the Bible clearly teaches.

I'm not, nor have I ever been, an atheist.

Fair enough.

I will also never be a Christian, thanks to "Christians" like you...

The reason you’re not a Christian has nothing to do with “Christians like me”, you still just have a heart of stone and nothing I do can change that. That being said, I could see you actually becoming one someday though, God has saved far more hardened people before (Carl Wieland and Antony Flew come to mind).

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

You really trying to justify the selling of children into slavery? She also has no say in her choice of husband, & all he has to do is feed, cloth, & sleep with her for her to not be able to leave?

Saying that American slavery is worse doesn't make this any less horrible. It's like saying, "Well yes I raped her but I'm much more gentle than most rapists".

Originally Posted by Statler

“If a man beats his male or female slave with a club and the slave dies as a result, the owner must be punished. 21 But if the slave recovers within a day or two, then the owner shall not be punished, since the slave is his property.”

Surprise! Surprise! Now I see why you changed translations, the NLT’s translation says “recovers” instead of “survives”; cherry-picking the translations that best serve your point is not fair, but you already knew that.

So you can beat on ‘em all you like, as long as they don’t die. So humane of the gracious Isrealites.

Originally Posted by Statler

1. Why does it matter they are adults? Are adults not capable of doing something wrong? Pedophiles don’t believe that molesting a child is rape because often they can get the child to consent, are they wrong? Why?
2. So is adultery not wrong? After all, aren’t they just two adults who have consented to fornicate with one another? Your morality seems to be helplessly subjective, and subjective morality is meaningless.

It’s a simple question. Do you, or do you not, support the execution of male adults who consent to fornicate with one another? I just want you to come out and say, “Yes, grown males who consent to fornicate with one another deserve to be put to death”. It is God’s will after all.

See, you can assert that your morality is objective all day long, but it’s nothing more than an assertion. Saying that being gay is immoral is as subjective as subjective gets.

You really trying to justify the selling of children into slavery? She also has no say in her choice of husband, & all he has to do is feed, cloth, & sleep with her for her to not be able to leave?

Nothing in scripture says anything about selling children into slavery. The only children mentioned are the ones addressed in the indentured servant portion, and we have already both agreed that that was not slavery. I don’t see anything immoral about arranged marriages; cultures have been doing that for thousands of years, in fact the American view on marriage is definitely the minority position.

Saying that American slavery is worse doesn't make this any less horrible. It's like saying, "Well yes I raped her but I'm much more gentle than most rapists".

That wasn’t the totality of my argument now was it?

Let’s recap…

1. I define morality as whatever God decrees to be good. You define morality as whatever alleviates suffering.2.Often in those times, being a slave was the only way to prevent from starving to death because people had to grow and harvest their own food, so you had to work for a land owner; so it was a necessary aspect of the social structure of that time period.3.God decreed that the Israelites were allowed to purchase foreign slaves. By being purchased by Israelites who were not allowed to injure their slaves and had to provide food and shelter for them, these foreign slaves received a far better deal than they would have from any other nation. Therefore their suffering was alleviated. If the Israelites were not allowed to purchase foreign slaves, many foreign slaves who would have otherwise been purchased by Israelites would have been sold to other nations who would have caused them to suffer at great lengths. 4.Given both yours and my definition of morality, slavery in the Bible was not immoral; so then why do you keep bringing up a non-issue? The truth of the matter is that you know that the word “slavery” is a very emotionally charged word in America. Therefore you know that by committing the fallacy of equivocation on the word, you can achieve an emotional response from people who are ignorant of basic world history. Unfortunately for you, I am not one of those people.

So you can beat on ‘em all you like, as long as they don’t die. So humane of the gracious Isrealites.

Nope, if a slave was injured by his owner (even if merely accidentally, Exodus 21), he was set free. In America you can spank (beat) your child with a rod as long as you do not injure the child. The exact same law is in effect today, in “civilized” 21st century America, so I see no issue with it, as apparently neither do the majority of Americans.

It’s a simple question. Do you, or do you not, support the execution of male adults who consent to fornicate with one another? I just want you to come out and say, “Yes, grown males who consent to fornicate with one another deserve to be put to death”. It is God’s will after all.

I already answered this question, sodomy and adultery as still sins but we do not punish them with death today.

See, you can assert that your morality is objective all day long, but it’s nothing more than an assertion. Saying that being gay is immoral is as subjective as subjective gets.

I don’t think that word means what you think it means. Subjective morality is any form of morality determined by personal or internal standards, or more precisely dependent upon the human mind. Objective morality is any standard of morality that is independent of the person, or determined by external forces. A morality determined by God (who is external and independent of human thought or opinion) is by definition objective. Your definition of morality is by definition subjective because you obviously just made it up. Non-believers like to borrow the concept of objective morality from Christians but they are incapable of accounting for its existence if Christianity were not true. It’s just another example of how you cannot know anything apart from God’s existence.

I would like to keep addressing this issue with you though because I never really got a straight answer out of you; do you believe that Old Earth Creationists, such as Timothy Reeves, are also “crazy”? Or are you fine with any Christian who accepts the age of the earth as billions of years old and Darwinian common descent?

Nothing in scripture says anything about selling children into slavery. The only children mentioned are the ones addressed in the indentured servant portion, and we have already both agreed that that was not slavery.

Can you not read?

“When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are”.

Originally Posted by Statler

1. I define morality as whatever God decrees to be good. You define morality as whatever alleviates suffering.

Not “whatever” alleviates suffering. I have my own subjective views on morality that I’ve gained through my life experience, so do you (whether you want to admit it or not). So just because they could’ve theoretically been treated better than slaves in other countries, they we’re still beaten & very much treated as slaves.

Originally Posted by Statler

Nope, if a slave was injured by his owner (even if merely accidentally, Exodus 21), he was set free. In America you can spank (beat) your child with a rod as long as you do not injure the child. The exact same law is in effect today, in “civilized” 21st century America, so I see no issue with it, as apparently neither do the majority of Americans.

Again with the reading comprehension. I’m quoting your own translation here:

“If a man beats his male or female slave with a club and the slave dies as a result, the owner must be punished. 21 But if the slave recovers within a day or two, then the owner shall not be punished, since the slave is his property.”

They’re only punished if the slave dies, not merely ‘injured’. The rest of the verse clearly claims that you can beat them to within an inch of their life as long as they recover within a day or two.

Originally Posted by Statler

Your definition of morality is by definition subjective because you obviously just made it up.

Whoever wrote the bible made up their own morality as well. You can claim is was divinely inspired but you have no proof. All morality is subjective.

Again I’ll ask you, is Hindu morality objective as it comes from an “external” source? Muslim morality? What about Catholic morality? They don’t eat pork ("And the swine, because it divideth the hoof, yet cheweth not the cud, it is unclean unto you. Ye shall not eat of their flesh, nor touch their dead carcass."), but many other Christians do; so who’s right? Again, is it conveniently the one you happen to believe in?

Originally Posted by Statler

Non-believers like to borrow the concept of objective morality from Christians but they are incapable of accounting for its existence if Christianity were not true. It’s just another example of how you cannot know anything apart from God’s existence.

Again, all morality is subjective. Saying that being gay is immoral is subjective. It may be immoral to you, or your church, but not to countless millions of other people.

Originally Posted by Statler

I already answered this question, sodomy and adultery as still sins but we do not punish them with death today.

Yes you’ve made it quite clear you’d be right there with all the other blind, mob-mentality believers stoning them back in those times.

Let me create a hypothetical scenario for you that might show you some of the consequences of your beliefs.

You’re an Israelite back in whatever time these laws were created. You’re village has discovered two male adults who have fallen in love & have been caught fornicating. As is clearly decreed by God, these people must be executed. One of these men who has been caught happens to be your brother, & the other man is a neighbor who’ve you’ve known practically all your life. He’s never done anyone any harm, but nonetheless he’s been caught defying God’s will. It just so happens that your job is the town executioner, & they’ve ordered you to murder both your brother & your neighbor. If you refuse, you will be excommunicated from the Church & will be executed yourself. They tie-down the guilty & strap their head to a smooth stone surface. They hand you a giant, jagged rock & order you to bash their heads in. What do you do?

“When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are”.

Can you not? I clearly said the only passages about children were in the indentured servant portion, which this verse came from. We already established that was not slavery, nice job proving my point. Hebrews only did this when their options were to allow the child to die of starvation or have them live with another Hebrew as a servant. I’d choose the second option myself, apparently you’d let your kid die, nice parent.

Not “whatever” alleviates suffering. I have my own subjective views on morality that I’ve gained through my life experience, so do you (whether you want to admit it or not). So just because they could’ve theoretically been treated better than slaves in other countries, they we’re still beaten & very much treated as slaves.

What? Your definition of morality is completely absurd and meaningless! Anyone else could just arbitrarily decide, “Whatever the Israelites were doing was not immoral” and their position is every bit as defensible as yours. You have no ground to object to anything in the Bible until you can come up with a logically coherent definition of morality, this “Whatever I say is immoral is immoral” garbage isn’t going to cut it. I’ll give you one more chance, how do you know whether something is right or wrong? “Because I say so” is not an acceptable answer.

Again with the reading comprehension. I’m quoting your own translation here:

No kidding, I am really beginning to question yours.

“If a man beats his male or female slave with a club and the slave dies as a result, the owner must be punished. 21 But if the slave recovers within a day or two, then the owner shall not be punished, since the slave is his property.”

They’re only punished if the slave dies, not merely ‘injured’. The rest of the verse clearly claims that you can beat them to within an inch of their life as long as they recover within a day or two.

I already addressed this verse! The word translated as punished there in Hebrew is “naqam”, this word ONLY means capital punishment, any other kind of punishment is a completely different word. Any Israelite who directly or intentionally kills his slave would be put to death, this verse is stipulating that if a slave was beaten but survived for or recovered a few days later the judges would give the owner the benefit of the doubt and assume he didn’t murder his slave but it was accidental. This does not mean they wouldn’t punish him at all, and Exodus 21:26-27 is quite clear that physically injuring your slave would result in the release of that slave. So the owner in this verse would have been punished and his slave would be set free if he recovered (much like when parents injure their children when disciplining them); sounds good to me, nothing to see here.

Whoever wrote the bible made up their own morality as well. You can claim is was divinely inspired but you have no proof. All morality is subjective.

Wow, for someone who claims that all morality is subjective you sure seem to want to suggest that slavery is absolutely objectively wrong, which doesn’t quite add up. Anyways, morality was revealed to us by God in the form of natural and direct revelation. It is therefore by definition objective. If scripture was not divinely inspired we wouldn’t be able to know anything at all, so we do have proof of its authenticity. You don’t like that, but whether or not you like something is irrelevant.

Again I’ll ask you, is Hindu morality objective as it comes from an “external” source? Muslim morality? What about Catholic morality? They don’t eat pork ("And the swine, because it divideth the hoof, yet cheweth not the cud, it is unclean unto you. Ye shall not eat of their flesh, nor touch their dead carcass."), but many other Christians do; so who’s right? Again, is it conveniently the one you happen to believe in?

Yes, those are objective concepts of morality, and there are ways to determine which one is right. However, you are not a Hindu, Muslim, or Catholic are you? So let’s stay on topic and discuss your morality vs. mine.

Again, all morality is subjective. Saying that being gay is immoral is subjective. It may be immoral to you, or your church, but not to countless millions of other people.

I love how you keep making an objective appeal to the fact that all morality is subjective. According to whom is homosexuality not wrong? Is it objectively not wrong? We are all created by God, therefore if God says that sodomizing another man is morally wrong (which is not the same thing as “being gay”, I doubt gay people would approve of you merely defining them by their sexual acts), it is therefore morally wrong to sodomize another regardless of what you believe. We don’t ask adulterers if they believe adultery is wrong or not because what they think is irrelevant, it is wrong independent of them.

Yes you’ve made it quite clear you’d be right there with all the other blind, mob-mentality believers stoning them back in those times.

Sure, that was the just penalty for that crime, what kind of person would still sodomize another man all the time knowing that if they got caught people would throw stones at them? If morality is subjective then who are you to judge the Israelites for stoning people for sodomy? Are you saying they couldn’t subjectively determine their own morality as you have done? You can’t have it both ways.

Let me create a hypothetical scenario for you that might show you some of the consequences of your beliefs.

As long as I get to do the same.

You’re an Israelite back in whatever time these laws were created. You’re village has discovered two male adults who have fallen in love & have been caught fornicating. As is clearly decreed by God, these people must be executed. One of these men who has been caught happens to be your brother, & the other man is a neighbor who’ve you’ve known practically all your life. He’s never done anyone any harm, but nonetheless he’s been caught defying God’s will. It just so happens that your job is the town executioner, & they’ve ordered you to murder both your brother & your neighbor. If you refuse, you will be excommunicated from the Church & will be executed yourself. They tie-down the guilty & strap their head to a smooth stone surface. They hand you a giant, jagged rock & order you to bash their heads in. What do you do?

That’s not how they stoned people back then; it was more like a firing squad so nobody was quite sure who delivered the kill shot, no single executioner. Why would my brother directly defy God like that, the almighty Creator of the universe tells him not to do something and he STILL does it? If my brother committed a capital crime, he’s deserving of a capital punishment, sodomy was a capital crime back then. If morality is subjective then why does that bother you so badly? Answer that question.

And this question, if someone commits adultery, but they never get caught, is it still morally wrong?

Can you not? I clearly said the only passages about children were in the indentured servant portion, which this verse came from. We already established that was not slavery, nice job proving my point. Hebrews only did this when their options were to allow the child to die of starvation or have them live with another Hebrew as a servant. I’d choose the second option myself, apparently you’d let your kid die, nice parent.

Indentured servants get to leave at some point. Apparently that’s not the case for these women.

Originally Posted by Statler

This does not mean they wouldn’t punish him at all, and Exodus 21:26-27 is quite clear that physically injuring your slave would result in the release of that slave. So the owner in this verse would have been punished and his slave would be set free if he recovered (much like when parents injure their children when disciplining them); sounds good to me, nothing to see here.

“20 Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.
26 An owner who hits a male or female slave in the eye and destroys it must let the slave go free to compensate for the eye. (Fair trade, right? I lose sight forever, & you lose a slave; even-stevens)
27 And an owner who knocks out the tooth of a male or female slave must let the slave go free to compensate for the tooth.”

So any body part not specifically mentioned there is up for beating. Commendable by slavery standards, though.

Originally Posted by Statler

Anyways, morality was revealed to us by God in the form of natural and direct revelation.

Assertion, no proof.

Originally Posted by Statler

If scripture was not divinely inspired we wouldn’t be able to know anything at all, so we do have proof of its authenticity.

Another assertion with no proof.

Do you not see how this is completely circular?

1. The Bible tells us that it is the word of God.
2. The word of God is infallible.
3. Therefore the Bible is infallible.
4. And as such, the Bible must be the word of God.
5. The word of God is infallible.
6. Therefore the Bible is infallible.
7. And...

"1. The order and magnificence of the world is evidence of God's Creation.2. Therefore, we know that God exists.
Here, it is assumed that God exists in order to satisfy the premise that "God's Creation" is evidence of his existence. There is no standalone argument here that connects existence to God's creation except the conclusion, which is that God exists. Note the slight structural differences in the argument to simple circular reasoning - the order of the world isn't implied by God's existence, but trying to use it as evidence of God's existence must assume he exists in the first place."

I doubt gay people would approve of you merely defining them by their sexual acts

Homosexual: of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex. It doesn't define them as a person, but it does define their gayness.

If morality is subjective then who are you to judge the Israelites for stoning people for sodomy? Are you saying they couldn’t subjectively determine their own morality as you have done? You can’t have it both ways.

If morality is subjective then why does that bother you so badly? Answer that question.

Sure they could’ve. Doesn’t mean I find it any less repugnant.

Originally Posted by Statler

That’s not how they stoned people back then; it was more like a firing squad so nobody was quite sure who delivered the kill shot, no single executioner. Why would my brother directly defy God like that, the almighty Creator of the universe tells him not to do something and he STILL does it?If my brother committed a capital crime, he’s deserving of a capital punishment, sodomy was a capital crime back then.

Here is a man willing to murder his own brother for his ideology. Lord knows what else your capable of. I should’ve changed the scenario to being excommunicated & banished from the country rather than being put to death yourself because then it becomes an issue of self-preservation, but I doubt it matters as you’d still have chosen to stone your brother to death.

You know they ought to add some fine-print to that “Thou shalt not kill” commandment.

It fascinates me how many 'Christ'ians are more concerned with having picked the 'correct' religion rather than trying to emulate the behavior of Jesus. You're more concerned with being the religion about Jesus rather than the religion of Jesus; as Watts would say.